The Powercrank Thread

[coapman]

I don't need to convince me. I know the cranks work. I have moved on to trying to figure out all the things they do and how to maximize the benefit. The first thing a scientist must be is a good observer.

Now that you have observed all, what advantages does PC pedalling have to offer a TT rider over the technique of a masher or over the simple cost free one legged training exercise.

 

[acoggan]

I see you take the A. Coggan academic bully approach to "debate".

Phooey.

(10 characters)

 

[FrankDay]

The burden of proof lies solely with you. Always has and always will. Relying on others to do research on your product is avoiding your responsibilities to your customers and potential customers. Until you provide evidence beyond anecdotes in the form of a well-designed study, the so-called evidence that you provide is pure marketing and nothing else.

Since we are not in a court of law I don't believe there is any burden of proof that falls to me. We tell people what we believe, based upon the data we have, and each individual can choose to believe it, not believe it, or choose to try it out for themselves. We give a pretty good guarantee should they take the try it approach and it not work out for them.

Anyway, I am away for a week. Like all soap operas, I know this tune will not have changed when I return. Cheers.

When you come back perhaps you would take your knowledge of studies and rather than criticize for what hasn't been done why don't we have a discussion regarding some or all of the studies that have been done. Wouldn't that be more a more useful use of everyone's time?

 

[FrankDay]

Now that you have observed all, what advantages does PC pedalling have to offer a TT rider over the technique of a masher or over the simple cost free one legged training exercise.

One-legged training doesn't train the two legged coordination. Further, few do this drill for more than a few minutes at a time. How does one train a 2-5 hour endurance in muscles doing a drill lasting a couple of minutes? Further, to do it requires the rider to be unbalanced on the bike and usually at a cadence much lower than their typical riding cadence. It is simply a not very effective way of training a better pedaling technique for the kind of racing most people do.

 

[FrankDay]

Phooey.

When you actually participate in a discussion/debate with useful information and considered remarks rather than ignoring the debate and/or disparaging remarks about the credentials of the other side you might convince me you have changed your ways. The above suggests I shouldn't hold my breath.

 

[CoachFergie]

Phooey.

Is that the title to the Frank Day story? I thought "A leap of faith" would have worked better.

 

[JamesCun]

Since we are not in a court of law I don't believe there is any burden of proof that falls to me. We tell people what we believe, based upon the data we have, and each individual can choose to believe it, not believe it, or choose to try it out for themselves. We give a pretty good guarantee should they take the try it approach and it not work out for them.When you come back perhaps you would take your knowledge of studies and rather than criticize for what hasn't been done why don't we have a discussion regarding some or all of the studies that have been done. Wouldn't that be more a more useful use of everyone's time?

If the benefits were as legit as you claim, you wouldn't be fighting people who disagree. Other tools, programs or methods that give a 40% improvement would be used by every person in the world. Even a 10% improvement would see everyone jump on board.

And I'm sure you are well aware that people rarely take any company up on returns like you have. That is a bit of an empty claim that only 2% return the cranks.

Been about 10yrs since I've known anyone that uses the power cranks. None of those people still use them and I haven't heard of a single person since them using the cranks in my circle of training buddies (100's of people ranging from rec to Olympians). On the other hand, almost all use a power meter and something like training peaks...

 

[FrankDay]

If the benefits were as legit as you claim, you wouldn't be fighting people who disagree.

I am not so sure it is "fighting" when we are talking about a thread devoted to the product and most of the negative comments are coming from people who have no experience with the product. Simply pointing out inconsistencies in their "facts." for those who come to the thread looking for a complete story.

Other tools, programs or methods that give a 40% improvement would be used by every person in the world.

Sure, assuming it worked and assuming there weren't people (who know nothing about whether it works or not) didn't bash it and assuming those who were using it didn't try to keep their use quiet for a competitive advantage ("I never told anyone about these." Barb Lindquist world champion triathlete). Anyhow, is there another tool or program that gives (or even claims) a 40% improvement?

Even a 10% improvement would see everyone jump on board.

Is there another tool or program that gives (or even claims) a 10% improvement? I can think of one. And that one "works" simply because it forces the athlete to train more. What you got?

And I'm sure you are well aware that people rarely take any company up on returns like you have. That is a bit of an empty claim that only 2% return the cranks.

Really? You have data to suggest that people would choose to eat $1,000 rather than take the bother to send an item that costs that much back that doesn't work for a refund? Link? I guess it is possible but seems unlikely to me. Anyhow, the fact remains, essentially no one returns them for refund. This includes the pros who buy them.

Been about 10yrs since I've known anyone that uses the power cranks. None of those people still use them and I haven't heard of a single person since them using the cranks in my circle of training buddies (100's of people ranging from rec to Olympians).

You've know 100's of people who have trained on PowerCranks but don't now? They must have been quite popular in your circle. Or, you know 100's of people and you haven't heard of anyone using them lately. All those 100's keep you informed regarding every aspect of their training? Could I ask what your personal experience with them is? How much did you use them and and for how long? What was your experience You do realize that one of the goals of training with the PowerCranks is to invoke changes that, hopefully, stay with the athlete such that it doesn't matter so much if they "stay with them" if those changes are made. We know that this does happen because people who stop using them for years and then go back to them never have the difficult transition issues they did the first time. So, I am not sure what your anecdote says. Anyhow, I am interested in hearing your personal experience.

On the other hand, almost all use a power meter and something like training peaks...

And, the claimed or proven benefit to the athlete from using those devices and plans? I might point out that they all use bicycles and clipless pedals and wear clothes when riding. The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there is a proven training or racing benefit to doing so. If one is looking to find a training or racing benefit to help set them apart it seems to me that one ought to be looking at what the front of the pack is doing / has done differently to get them there not what everyone is doing the same. PowerCranks users seem to have a far higher percentage of world champions amongst their users (guess they are not in your circle of friends) than one might expect based upon the percentage PC users racing. Just sayin'…

 

[coapman]

One-legged training doesn't train the two legged coordination.

What exactly are you referring to, how and where in the pedalling circle is this taking place.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I am not so sure it is "fighting" when we are talking about a thread devoted to the product and most of the negative comments are coming from people who have no experience with the product. Simply pointing out inconsistencies in their "facts." for those who come to the thread looking for a complete story.Sure, assuming it worked and assuming there weren't people (who know nothing about whether it works or not) didn't bash it and assuming those who were using it didn't try to keep their use quiet for a competitive advantage ("I never told anyone about these." Barb Lindquist world champion triathlete). Anyhow, is there another tool or program that gives (or even claims) a 40% improvement?

Is there another tool or program that gives (or even claims) a 10% improvement? I can think of one. And that one "works" simply because it forces the athlete to train more. What you got? Really? You have data to suggest that people would choose to eat $1,000 rather than take the bother to send an item that costs that much back that doesn't work for a refund? Link? I guess it is possible but seems unlikely to me. Anyhow, the fact remains, essentially no one returns them for refund. This includes the pros who buy them.You've know 100's of people who have trained on PowerCranks but don't now? They must have been quite popular in your circle. Or, you know 100's of people and you haven't heard of anyone using them lately. All those 100's keep you informed regarding every aspect of their training? Could I ask what your personal experience with them is? How much did you use them and and for how long? What was your experience You do realize that one of the goals of training with the PowerCranks is to invoke changes that, hopefully, stay with the athlete such that it doesn't matter so much if they "stay with them" if those changes are made. We know that this does happen because people who stop using them for years and then go back to them never have the difficult transition issues they did the first time. So, I am not sure what your anecdote says. Anyhow, I am interested in hearing your personal experience.And, the claimed or proven benefit to the athlete from using those devices and plans? I might point out that they all use bicycles and clipless pedals and wear clothes when riding. The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there is a proven training or racing benefit to doing so. If one is looking to find a training or racing benefit to help set them apart it seems to me that one ought to be looking at what the front of the pack is doing / has done differently to get them there not what everyone is doing the same. PowerCranks users seem to have a far higher percentage of world champions amongst their users (guess they are not in your circle of friends) than one might expect based upon the percentage PC users racing. Just sayin'…

Performance artist. Just sayin'...

 

[FrankDay]

What exactly are you referring to, how and where in the pedalling circle is this taking place.

You are kidding, right? In case not, it just turns out that when most of us pedal both legs are used at the same time and, it just so happens, they are not doing the same thing at any given time. What they do is controlled by the same computer (the nervous system) and, it seems, how well we do it depends upon how well all the muscles involved are coordinated by that nervous system. Sort of similar to running. I am not aware of any runner trying to improve their running by doing one legged drills to improve technique.

 

[coapman]

You are kidding, right? In case not, it just turns out that when most of us pedal both legs are used at the same time and, it just so happens, they are not doing the same thing at any given time. What they do is controlled by the same computer (the nervous system) and, it seems, how well we do it depends upon how well all the muscles involved are coordinated by that nervous system. Sort of similar to running. I am not aware of any runner trying to improve their running by doing one legged drills to improve technique.

I have perfect coordination in my technique but it requires concentration on the objectives your brain has to follow and this results in the simultaneous starting and ending of the extended (180deg.) power (down) strokes. You say you pedal unconsciously, so how can you know what is being coordinated.

 

[JamesCun]

I am not so sure it is "fighting" when we are talking about a thread devoted to the product and most of the negative comments are coming from people who have no experience with the product. Simply pointing out inconsistencies in their "facts." for those who come to the thread looking for a complete story.Sure, assuming it worked and assuming there weren't people (who know nothing about whether it works or not) didn't bash it and assuming those who were using it didn't try to keep their use quiet for a competitive advantage ("I never told anyone about these." Barb Lindquist world champion triathlete). Anyhow, is there another tool or program that gives (or even claims) a 40% improvement?

Is there another tool or program that gives (or even claims) a 10% improvement? I can think of one. And that one "works" simply because it forces the athlete to train more. What you got? Really? You have data to suggest that people would choose to eat $1,000 rather than take the bother to send an item that costs that much back that doesn't work for a refund? Link? I guess it is possible but seems unlikely to me. Anyhow, the fact remains, essentially no one returns them for refund. This includes the pros who buy them.You've know 100's of people who have trained on PowerCranks but don't now? They must have been quite popular in your circle. Or, you know 100's of people and you haven't heard of anyone using them lately. All those 100's keep you informed regarding every aspect of their training? Could I ask what your personal experience with them is? How much did you use them and and for how long? What was your experience You do realize that one of the goals of training with the PowerCranks is to invoke changes that, hopefully, stay with the athlete such that it doesn't matter so much if they "stay with them" if those changes are made. We know that this does happen because people who stop using them for years and then go back to them never have the difficult transition issues they did the first time. So, I am not sure what your anecdote says. Anyhow, I am interested in hearing your personal experience.And, the claimed or proven benefit to the athlete from using those devices and plans? I might point out that they all use bicycles and clipless pedals and wear clothes when riding. The fact that "everyone" does something doesn't mean that there is a proven training or racing benefit to doing so. If one is looking to find a training or racing benefit to help set them apart it seems to me that one ought to be looking at what the front of the pack is doing / has done differently to get them there not what everyone is doing the same.

Interesting that you mentioned clipless pedals. A great example of a new technology that was universally adopted by riders. Aero bars, disk wheels, deep rims, etc are other great examples.

Point is, word of mouth would be enough to have powercranks in every riders stable of gear if people were actually getting a 40% improvement. Like I said, of the 100's of endurance cyclists/triathletes that I've worked with and trained with over the last 10 years, I've never seen anyone with PC or heard anyone mention them.

PowerCranks users seem to have a far higher percentage of world champions amongst their users (guess they are not in your circle of friends) than one might expect based upon the percentage PC users racing. Just sayin'…

Far higher than what? I'd be interested to see the numbers and athlete lists here.

 

[JamesCun]

I'm still confused because you seem to be saying that the power on the upstroke would be equal to the power on the downstroke if you removed gravity from the system. But then you say power on the upstroke is maybe 5% and the goal is to eliminate the negative power.

What is causing/allowing the 40% improvement? What changes are taking place in a rider that could allow that much of an increase in power?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

What is causing/allowing the 40% improvement? What changes are taking place in a rider that could allow that much of an increase in power?

It's called training, and has nothing to do with the cranks.

 

[Granville57]

Since we are not in a court of law I don't believe there is any burden of proof that falls to me.

And with that, you should really just stop.

Seriously. If that's your belief, then there's really nothing more worth arguing about.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

And with that, you should really just stop.

Seriously. If that's your belief, then there's really nothing more worth arguing about.

Truth is optional, but with PC's you can improve it by 40%.

 

[JamesCun]

It's called training, and has nothing to do with the cranks.

That can't be true. Frank must have identified some physiological changes that can account for a 40% increase independent of normal training effect. It's been 15 years...

 

[FrankDay]

I'm still confused because you seem to be saying that the power on the upstroke would be equal to the power on the downstroke if you removed gravity from the system. But then you say power on the upstroke is maybe 5% and the goal is to eliminate the negative power.

Here is the problem in discussing this with people who don't have an engineering background. It is the difference between when the work is done. In a gravitational field there is little actual work done as seen by the bicycle on the upstroke because the force on the pedal is small but the muscles are doing a lot of work and that work is increasing the potential energy of the leg by raising it. That PE is returned on the downstroke, increasing the force on the pedal seen on the downstroke over that supplied by the down pushing muscles by the weight of the the leg. This affect on the pedal forces distorts the picture of what the muscles are doing if one doesn't realize this, which, it seems, no bicyclists do. Take away a gravitational field and the work of the muscles would be seen on the pedals without distortion. So, even if there is negative power seen on the upstroke because of only partial unweighting, the lifting muscles are still doing work because of the unweighting they are doing. The reason one should desire complete unweighting is to allow one to get the full benefit of what the pushing muscles are doing rather than diverting some of that work to help get the lifting leg up, assuming it is possible to do so, which it obviously is.

What is causing/allowing the 40% improvement? What changes are taking place in a rider that could allow that much of an increase in power?

I just explained this but you must have missed it. I will try again. There are a lot of little changes that add up to the total change. The power the rider produces is the average of all the instantaneous power seen around the circle. The "rounder" the pedal forces the higher the average power for any given maximum push. With the help of PowerCranks it is easier to improve the top, bottom, and back of the stroke. Small improvements over 3/4 of the stroke add up to a large change. This is demonstrated in a couple of pedal stroke analyses I posted earlier. Check out posts #318, #337 (in which it is pretty well demonstrated that a 30% power increase can easily occur from simple technique changes - and in which further increases are possible if the technique is more circular as demonstrated by one of our pros (guess he isn't in your circle), see post #424 ) and #413.

I think the data is quite clear now that we actually have the ability to collect it. Poor technique robs people of power, lots of power, and poor technique can be fixed. Almost everyone has a 40% improvement waiting to be found in correcting their poor technique.

 

[FrankDay]

That can't be true. Frank must have identified some physiological changes that can account for a 40% increase independent of normal training effect. It's been 15 years...

Correct, see the above post. While training effect may be the explanation for some of the improvement in some of our users it isn't all that is going on, especially when one is talking about the pros.

 

[CoachFergie]

That can't be true. Frank must have identified some physiological changes that can account for a 40% increase independent of normal training effect. It's been 15 years...

A theoretical improvement that has never been documented. The ability to measure most aspects of the pedal stroke have been around for 40 years or more. No amazing revelations have been discovered.

People get better at riding the bike better from riding the bike better.

 

[JamesCun]

Here is the problem in discussing this with people who don't have an engineering background. It is the difference between when the work is done. In a gravitational field there is little actual work done as seen by the bicycle on the upstroke because the force on the pedal is small but the muscles are doing a lot of work and that work is increasing the potential energy of the leg by raising it. That PE is returned on the downstroke, increasing the force on the pedal seen on the downstroke over that supplied by the down pushing muscles by the weight of the the leg. This affect on the pedal forces distorts the picture of what the muscles are doing if one doesn't realize this, which, it seems, no bicyclists do. Take away a gravitational field and the work of the muscles would be seen on the pedals without distortion. So, even if there is negative power seen on the upstroke because of only partial unweighting, the lifting muscles are still doing work because of the unweighting they are doing. The reason one should desire complete unweighting is to allow one to get the full benefit of what the pushing muscles are doing rather than diverting some of that work to help get the lifting leg up, assuming it is possible to do so, which it obviously is. I just explained this but you must have missed it. I will try again. There are a lot of little changes that add up to the total change. The power the rider produces is the average of all the instantaneous power seen around the circle. The "rounder" the pedal forces the higher the average power for any given maximum push. With the help of PowerCranks it is easier to improve the top, bottom, and back of the stroke. Small improvements over 3/4 of the stroke add up to a large change. This is demonstrated in a couple of pedal stroke analyses I posted earlier. Check out posts #318, #337 (in which it is pretty well demonstrated that a 30% power increase can easily occur from simple technique changes - and in which further increases are possible if the technique is more circular as demonstrated by one of our pros (guess he isn't in your circle), see post #424 ) and #413.

I think the data is quite clear now that we actually have the ability to collect it. Poor technique robs people of power, lots of power, and poor technique can be fixed. Almost everyone has a 40% improvement waiting to be found in correcting their poor technique.

You sound like you're advocating getting something for nothing. Just round out the pedal stroke and somehow that means an easy 40% improvement. No extra energy cost to do so. Interesting concept.

Also, no need to be defensive about my 'circle' of riders. If you truly believe your claims, you shouldn't care what anyone else thinks since you revolutionized bike training. And as I've said, word of mouth would convince everyone else when people start seeing that 40% improvement.

 

[CoachFergie]

You sound like you're advocating getting something for nothing. Just round out the pedal stroke and somehow that means an easy 40% improvement. No extra energy cost to do so. Interesting concept.

Also, no need to be defensive about my 'circle' of riders. If you truly believe your claims, you shouldn't care what anyone else thinks since you revolutionized bike training. And as I've said, word of mouth would convince everyone else when people start seeing that 40% improvement.

There has never been one case in the last 13-14 years where anyone has been shown to improve their power by this mythical 40%. A couple of close claims were easily invalidated. One power file from a climb in Spain was proved fradulent when patterns of power started repeating and a engineering graduate (MIT) no less claimed a 60min power improvement from a rollers based test. Seemed fishy when it was higher than his power from a 20min hill climb. Turns out he had failed to zero his power meter.

So in recent times Frank has shifted to making speed based claims. What a joke. A claimed hour improvement in a hilly California race turned out to be for a shorter course, run in reverse and in different weather conditions. Latest is an improvement in a 12 hour TT from the UK that were four years apart.

I don't bother engaging Frank any more these days. Wouldn't know Science if a pile of journals were dropped on his head.

 

[coapman]

With the help of PowerCranks it is easier to improve the top, bottom, and back of the stroke. Small improvements over 3/4 of the stroke add up to a large change.

The problem with this is, the most effective change occurs in your down stroke torque which decreases by more than you can apply at top/bottom/back of your circular stroke, as demonstrated by Coyle's research (circular v mashing). How does the pedalling of a PC'er who returns to standard cranks differ from that of the circular pedaller. Now that you have your second generation PM, during steady flat road pedalling try to apply maximal torque at bottom, upstroke and top of your circular stroke and you will see what effect this has on your down stroke torque.

 

[FrankDay]

You sound like you're advocating getting something for nothing.

I guess different people have different concepts of "something for nothing." To see the claimed (on average) 40% improvement requires a minimum of 6 months of dedicated hard work. IMHO that is more being rewarded for your hard work, not something for nothing.

Just round out the pedal stroke and somehow that means an easy 40% improvement. No extra energy cost to do so. Interesting concept.

You are correct "just" round out the pedal stroke and see big improvements. Problem is it isn't as easy to accomplish as your use of the word "just" implies. Further, it isn't entirely energy neutral. Increasing what the rider does on the backstroke involves increasing the energy cost in those muscles. However, starting and stopping the contraction of the quads earlier than most do now is, essentially, energy neutral but results in large power increases because it increases the forces across the top. So, the big power increases occur with a smaller energy cost than it does to see power increases by just continuing to do what you do now but harder. It is how one can explain the efficiency improvements found in the Luttrell study. Glad you are finally beginning to understand that it is an interesting concept. Not only is it an interesting concept, it actually works, once the change is accomplished.

Also, no need to be defensive about my 'circle' of riders. If you truly believe your claims, you shouldn't care what anyone else thinks since you revolutionized bike training. And as I've said, word of mouth would convince everyone else when people start seeing that 40% improvement.

I take it you are a pro and doing this sport for the money. If you were to find a tool that gave you a real advantage over your competition would you tell them about it? If you said yes then you really aren't very competitive. When Barb Lindquist

Barb’s consistency in racing solidified her as the #1 World Ranked Triathlete from February 2003 through 2004, a spot held longer than any other male or female in the sport.

Lindquist made it to the top of the sport by dedication to hard work, an easy-going spirit, and insights from husband and coach, Loren… (note, I think you will find, if you asked, that one of those insights she got from Loren was being introduced to PowerCranks)

told me "she didn't tell anyone about these" she later corrected that and said she did tell one other person but that person was a male (so not a competitor) and he also became ranked #1 in the world for a very long time. If the people telling you not to use the product are faster than you why should you believe them? If they are slower than you, why should you believe them? Wouldn't it be better to find out for yourself? Anyhow, the few who have come to these forums to tell their positive experience have been shouted down as liars and shills (as Fergie is currently doing) and such that they have essentially given up and are probably quietly smiling at the continued advantage they will have. Doug Clark, a long-time (10+ years) PowerCranker just won another national championship at USAT nats last weekend. He probably sends Fergie a little Christmas gift every year.